Hermeneutics is the science that
furnishes the principles of interpretation.These principles guide and govern anybody's system of theology.They ought to be determined before one's
theology is systematized, but in practice the reverse is usually true.At least in the awareness of most people,
hermeneutics is one of the last things to be considered consciously.Most people know something of the doctrines
they believe but little of the hermeneutics on which they have been built.Principles of interpretation are basic and
preferably should be established before attempting to interpret the Word so
that the results are not only correct interpretations but a right system of
theology growing out of those interpretations.

SOME RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

Since
the first edition of this book in 1965, there have been at least three
developments in the field of hermeneutics.

1
The area of linguistics has contributed an understanding concerning language
structure and general semantics that has aided biblical interpretation.[1]

2
There has been a focus on a literary approach to Scripture, or a focus on the
different genres found in Scripture.(Genre
is "a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition
characterized by a particular style, form or content.")This focus has increased the study of
comparative literature from the ancient Near East and from the intertestamental
and Greco-Roman periods.

But the study of genre brings both
"promises" and "pitfalls."[2]It promises a better understanding of the
historical and cultural background of the Bible, which is part of
historical-grammatical interpretation. But one of the pitfalls is to claim that
"each genre represents truth in its own way and makes unique demands for
how it should be read,"[3]
and that "meaning is genre dependent."[4]The writer then provides a different list of
hermeneutical principles for each of the genres found in the Bible.Another is not taking into full account that
there are significant limitations to parallels made between the monotheism of
Israel and her God-given Scriptures and the polytheism of other Near Eastern
religions and their solely human documents.

3
Attention has also been given recently to the role of preunderstanding in one's
approach to interpretation.This means
that we bring to our interpretation of Scripture not only a set of interpretive
principles (hermeneutics) but also theological presuppositions, as well as
personal and cultural predispositions. The process of engaging these three
aspects has been called the hermeneutical spiral — we spiral from our
predispositions and hermeneutics to the exegesis of Scripture and developing
our theology, and then cycle through again, expecting that each cycle will help
us grow into a better understanding of God's Word.

THE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS

Historically, among evangelicals, there
have been two basic and distinctive hermeneutical positions — dispensationalism
and covenantalism.Recently a third
position has appeared, that of progressive dispensationalism, which is somewhat
of a mediating position and which does not fully share the hermeneutics of
normative dispensationalism.

The Dispensational Position

Literal hermeneutics. Dispensationalists claim that their
principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation.[5]This means interpretation that gives to
every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in
writing, speaking, or thinking.[6]It is sometimes called the principle of grammatical-historical
interpretation since the meaning of each word is determined by grammatical
and historical considerations.The
principle might also be called normal interpretation since the literal
meaning of words is the normal approach to their understanding in all
languages.It might also be designated plain
interpretation so that no one receives the mistaken notion that the literal
principle rules out figures of speech. Symbols, figures of speech, and types
are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to
literal interpretation.After all, the
very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of
the literal meaning of the terms involved.Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal,
or plain meaning that they convey to the reader.

The literalist (so called) is
not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols, are used in
prophecy; nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth
therein; his position is, simply; that the prophecies are to be normally
interpreted (i.e., according to the received laws of language) as any other
utterances are interpreted — that which is manifestly figurative being so
regarded.[7]

Many reasons are given by
dispensationalists to support this hermeneutical principle of literal, normal,
or plain interpretation.At least three
are worthy of mention at this point.

Philosophically; the purpose of language itself seems to
require literal interpretation.Language was given by God for the purpose of being able to communicate
with mankind.As Gordon Clark says,

If God created man in His own rational
image and endowed him with the power of speech, then a purpose of language, in
fact the chief purpose of language, would naturally be the revelation of truth
to man and the prayers of man to God. In a theistic philosophy one ought not to
say that all language has been devised in order to describe and discuss the
finite objects of our sense-experience…. On the contrary, language was devised
by God, that is, God created man rational for the purpose of theological
expression.[8]

If God is the originator of language
and if the chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to
humanity; then it must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving,
originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell
mankind.Furthermore, it must also
follow that He would use language and expect people to understand it in its
literal, normal, and plain sense. The Scriptures, then, cannot be regarded as
an illustration of some special use of language so that in the interpretation
of these Scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be sought.If language is the creation of God for the
purpose of conveying His message, then a theist must view that language as
sufficient in scope and normative in use to accomplish that purpose for which
God originated it.

A second reason why dispensationalists
believe in the literal principle is a biblical one: the prophecies in the Old
Testament concerning the first coming of Christ — His birth, His rearing, His
ministry; His death, His resurrection — were all fulfilled literally. That
argues strongly for the literal method.

A third reason is a logical one.If one does not use the plain, normal, or
literal method of interpretation, all objectivity is lost.What check would there be on the variety of
interpretations that man's imagination could produce if there were not an
objective standard, which the literal principle provides?To try to see meaning other than the normal
one would result in as many interpretations as there are people interpreting.
Literalism is a logical rationale.

Of course, literal interpretation is
not the exclusive property of dispensationalists.Most conservatives would agree with what has just been said.What, then, is the difference between the
dispensationalist's use of this hermeneutical principle and the
nondispensationalist's?The difference
lies in the dispensationalist's claim to use the normal principle of
interpretation consistently in all his study of the Bible.He further claims that the
nondispensationalist does not use the principle everywhere.He admits that the nondispensationalist is a
literalist in much of his interpretation of the Scriptures but charges him with
allegorizing or spiritualizing when it comes to the interpretation of
prophecy.The dispensationalist claims
to be consistent in his use of this principle, and he accuses the
nondispensationalist of being inconsistent in his use of it.

Notice, for instance, the predicament
one writer gets himself into by not using the literal principle consistently.[9]He recognizes that some insist on a literal
fulfillment of prophecy whereas others see only a symbolic meaning.His suggestion is that prophecy should be
approached "in terms of equivalents, analogy, or correspondence."[10]
As an example of the application of this principle he mentions the weapons
cited in Ezekiel 39 and states that these will not be the exact weapons used in
the future war; rather, equivalent weapons will be used.But suppose this principle of equivalents
were applied to Micah 5:2.Then any
small town in Palestine would have satisfactorily fulfilled the prophecy of
where Christ were to be born.If the
Bible says "like chariots" or "like Bethlehem" (which it
does not), then there may be some latitude in interpretation.But if specific details are not interpreted
literally when given as specific details, there can be no end to the variety of
meanings of a text.

Consistency.In theory the
importance of the literal principle is not debated.Most agree that it involves some obvious procedures.For one thing, the meaning of each word must
be studied.This involves etymology,
use, history; and resultant meaning.For another thing, the grammar, or relationship of the words to each
other, must be analyzed.For a third
thing, the context, immediate and remote, must be considered. That means
comparing Scripture with Scripture as well as the study of the immediate
context.These principles are well
known and can be studied in any standard text on hermeneutics.

However, in practice the theory is often compromised or
adjusted and, in effect, vitiated. The amillennialist does this in his entire approach
to eschatology: For instance, Floyd Hamilton, an amillennialist, confessed,

Now we must frankly admit that a
literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a
picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist
pictures.That was the kind of
Messianic kingdom that the Jews of the time of Christ were looking for, on the
basis of a literal kingdom interpretation of the Old Testament promises.[11]

Having admitted this, he naturally
arrives at a different picture of the kingdom on the basis of different
hermeneutics.He feels, of course, that
he has found justifiable reasons for spiritualizing the concept of the kingdom,
but the important point is that his resultant picture stems from a principle of
hermeneutics that is not literal (for, by his own admission, if he followed the
literal principle, he would be a premillennialist).The change from a literal procedure is not difficult to see in
amillennialism.

More recently Vern Poythress, a
covenant theologian, differentiates between eschatological and
preeschatological fulfillments of prophecy; though he maintains that both are
based on grammatical-historical interpretation:

I claim that there
is sound, solid, grammatical-historical ground for interpreting eschatological
fulfillments of prophecy on a different basis than preeschatological
fulfillments….It is therefore a move
away from grammatical-historical interpretation to insist that (say) the
"house of Israel" and the "house of Judah" of Jeremiah
31:31 must with dogmatic certainty be interpreted in the most prosaic
biological sense, a sense that an Israelite might be likely to apply as a rule
of thumb in short-term prediction.[12]

But a few verses further on in that
passage God links the certainty of His promises to the "nation" to
the fixed order of the sun, moon, and stars. Does this not demand a literal or
prosaic (which means "everyday" or "ordinary")
interpretation of the meaning of the house of Israel and the house of Judah?Does not Poythress's distinction between
preeschatological interpretation (which is literal) and eschatological
interpretation (which is not) arise from his theological framework imposed on
the text, rather than from the text itself?

The premillennialist who is
nondispensational also compromises the literal principle.This is done by what Daniel Fuller, a
representative of this group, calls “theological interpretation":“In Covenant Theology there is the tendency
to impute to passages a meaning which would not be gained merely from their
historical and grammatical associations.This phase of interpretation is called the 'theological'
interpretation."[13]

This is quite an admission, for it means that the
covenant premillennialist is not a consistent literalist by his own
statement.If he were, he would have to
be a dispensationalist, and he seems to know it!An example of this hybrid literal-theological principle in action
is given by Fuller in connection with the promises made to Abraham. He states
(correctly) that the dispensationalist understands the promises to require two
seeds, a physical and a spiritual seed for Abraham.He notes that the amillennialist "depreciates the physical
aspect of the seed of Abraham so much that the promises made to Abraham's
physical seed no longer mean what they say, but are interpreted strictly in
spiritual terms.This mediating
position [that of the covenant premillennialist] still asserts that a
literalistic procedure, which also interprets theologically by regarding
progressive revelation, is the basic hermeneutical approach."[14]

Thus, the nondispensationalist is not a consistent
literalist by his own admission but has to introduce another hermeneutical
principle (the "theological" method) in order to have a hermeneutical
basis for the system he holds.One
suspects that the conclusions determined the means used to arrive at them —
which is a charge usually hurled at dispensationalists.

Fuller's problem is that apparently his
concept of progressive revelation includes the possibility that subsequent
revelation may completely change the meaning of something previously
revealed.It is true that progressive
revelation brings additional light, but does it completely reverse to the point
of contradiction what has been previously revealed? Fuller's concept apparently
allows for such, but the literal principle built upon a sound philosophy of the
purpose of language does not.New
revelation cannot mean contradictory revelation.Later revelation on a subject does not make the earlier
revelation mean something different.It
may add to it or even supersede it, but it does not contradict it. A word or
concept cannot mean one thing in the Old Testament and take on opposite meaning
in the New Testament.If this were so,
the Bible would be filled with contradictions, and God would have to be
conceived of as deceiving the Old Testament prophets when He revealed to them a
nationalistic kingdom, since He would have known all the time that He would
completely reverse the concept in later revelation.The true concept of progressive revelation is like a building —
and certainly the superstructure does not replace the foundation.

In spite of this fallacy; however,
Fuller does plead for "the patience to pursue the inductive method of
Bible study.The inductive method of
Bible study; which is nothing more than the scientific method, seeks to gain
all the facts before drawing some general conclusions from them.”[15]This is a worthy plea, for such an approach
to Bible study is the only safe one.But to do an induction on the basic words "Israel" and
"church" would have been in order.He might then have seen more easily why the dispensationalist believes
that God has two distinct purposes — one for Israel and one for the church. In
the progress of revelation there has been no change in the meaning of these
words, and they are kept distinct. The "theological" principle of
hermeneutics may allow a blending of the two, but true progressive revelation
does not. After all, the same hermeneutical principles must be applied to all
revelation, regardless of the time in which it was given.

To pursue the illustration of Israel
and the church further, the amillennialist's hermeneutics allow him to blur
completely the meanings of the two words in the New Testament such that the
church takes over the fulfillment of the promises to Israel.In that view true Israel is the church. The
covenant premillennialist goes halfway.The church and Israel are somewhat blended, though not amalgamated in
this age (they are kept distinct in the Millennium). The dispensationalist
studies the words in the New Testament, finds that they are kept distinct
always, and therefore concludes that when the church was introduced God did not
abrogate His Promises to Israel or enmesh them into the church. That is why the
dispensationalist recognizes two purposes of God and insists on maintaining the
distinction between Israel and the church.And all of this is built on an inductive study of the use of two words,
not a scheme superimposed on the Bible. In other words, it is built on a
consistent use of the literal, normal, or plain method of interpretation
without the addition of any other principle that will attempt to give
respectability to some preconceived conclusions.[16]

Classic dispensationalism is a result
of consistent application of the basic hermeneutical principle of literal,
normal, or plain interpretation. No other system of theology can claim this.

The Nondispensational Position

Theinterpretation of prophecy.One
of the key features of nondispensational hermeneutics is to interpret prophecy
and sometimes nonprophetic portions of Scripture figuratively.This, often called a "spiritual"
hermeneutic, allows for a symbolic meaning of a passage. In criticizing literal
hermeneutics Louis Berkhof says, "The theory [of premillennialism] is
based on a literal interpretation of Israel and of the Kingdom of God, which is
entirely untenable."To support
his spiritual hermeneutic he states that the New Testament "does contain
abundant indications of the spiritual fulfillment of the promises given to
Israel."[17]This approach has led nondispensationalists
to equate, or at least to merge, Israel and the church, which in turn has
resulted in spiritualizing the yet unfulfilled blessings promised to Israel by
having them fulfilled presently by the church.

Oswald Allis, a champion of covenant
theology and amillennialism, and a vigorous opponent of dispensationalism
argues in the same vein:

One of the most marked features of
premillennialism in all its forms is the emphasis which it places on the
literal interpretation of Scripture.It
is the insistent claims of its advocates that only when interpreted literally
is the Bible interpreted truly; and they denounce as "spiritualizers"
or "allegorizers" those who do not interpret the Bible with the same
degree of literalness as they do.None
have made this charge more pointedly than the dispensationalists.[18]

In his words, the issue between
dispensationalists and nondispensationalist is "the same degree of
literalness " or consistency in the use of literalism. Specifically this
has to do with the interpretation of prophecy.The dispensationalist claims to apply his literal principle to all
Scripture, including prophecy, whereas the nondispensationalist does not apply
it to prophecy.He does apply it to
other areas of truth, and this is evident from the simple fact that there is no
disagreement with dispensationalists over these doctrines.Allis himself admits that "the Old
Testament prophecies if literally interpreted cannot be regarded as having been
yet fulfilled or as being capable of fulfillment in this present age."[19]

Of course, there are nondispensational
premillennialists.But they, like the
amillennialist, do not apply the literal principle consistently.They apply it more extensively than the
amillennialist but not so extensively as the dispensationalist.[20]In other words, the nondispensationalist
position is simply that the literal principle is sufficient except for the
interpretation of prophecy.In this
area, the spiritualizing principle of interpretation must be introduced.The amillennialist uses it in the entire
area of prophetic truth; the covenant premillennialist uses it only partially.

Many years ago George Peters warned of
the dangers of any sort of spiritualizing in interpreting the Scriptures.His words are still appropriate:

The prophecies referring to the Kingdom
of God, as now interpreted by the large majority of Christians, afford the
strongest leverage employed by unbelievers against Christianity.Unfortunately; unbelief is often logically
correct.Thus, e.g., it eagerly points
to the predictions pertaining to David's Son, showing that, if language has any
legitimate meaning, and words are adequate to express an idea,
they unmistakably predict the restoration of David's throne and kingdom,
etc., and then triumphantly declare that it was not realized (so Strauss, Baur,
Renan, Parker, etc.).They mock the
expectation of the Jews, of Simeon, the preaching of John, Jesus, and the
disciples, the anticipation of the early Church, and hastily conclude,
sustained by the present faith of the Church (excepting only a few),
that they will never be fulfilled; and that, therefore, the prophecies,
the foundation upon which the superstructure rests, are false, and of human
concoction.The manner of meeting such
objections is humiliating to the Word and Reason; for it discards the plain
grammatical sense as unreliable, and, to save the credit of the Word,
insists upon interpreting all such prophecies by adding to them under the claim
of spiritual, a sense which is not contained in the language, but suits
the religious system adopted.Unbelief
is not slow in seizing the advantage thus given, gleefully pointing out
how this introduced change makes the ancient faith an ignorant one, the early
Church occupying a false position, and the Bible a book to which man adds any
sense, under the plea of spiritual, that may be deemed necessary for its
defense.[21]

Building
on the contemporary emphasis on genre, nondispensationalists are pointing to
the extensive use of symbols and metaphors that are used in prophecy and
arguing that these give clues to the reader that such material is to be
interpreted symbolically.For example,
Bruce Waltke, in critiquing Ladd's premillennialism, wrote, "note the
many symbols in verse 1 [of Rev. 20]: 'key,' 'abyss,' 'chain,' and then in
verse 2 'dragon,' the only interpreted symbol. If 'key,' 'chain,' 'dragon,'
'abyss,' etc. are symbolic, why should the number 1000 be literal, especially
when numbers are notoriously symbolic in apocalyptic literature?"[22]

Here is another recent example
concerning the use of symbolism in prophecy."This may mean that Matthew 24:29/Mark 13:24 is referring not to
the literal destruction of physical entities in outer space, but to the
upheaval and overthrow of political entities and/or spiritual forces on earth.”[23]

To be sure, apocalyptic literature does
employ symbols, but they stand for something actual. Furthermore, much of the
Apocalypse is perfectly plain and clear, and sometimes explains in the text
itself the meaning of a symbol (Rev. 1:20; 11:8; 12:5; 17:15; 20:2).At other times the text will say
"like," ''as,'' or ''as it were," indicating a real correspondence
between what John saw and the reality he was trying to describe.These are all useful and common means of
normal communication and in no way require abandoning plain interpretation.

The use of the Old Testament in the
New.Some
nondispensationalists argue against dispensationalism and a literal hermeneutic
on the basis of their understanding of how the New Testament authors use the
Old.According to Berkhof, "It
is remarkable that the New Testament, which is the fulfillment of the Old,
contains no indication whatsoever of the re-establishment of the Old Testament
theocracy by Jesus… while it does contain abundant indication of the spiritual
fulfillment of the promises given to Israel."[24]

Others, while not agreeing with the
view that all the Old Testament promises are now fulfilled spiritually in the
church, are saying that these promises have been inaugurated and begun to be
fulfilled now in the church age and will be consummated in the new heavens and
new earth (the already/not yet concept).[25]Whereas half of this viewpoint is the same
as that taught in progressive dispensationalism (i.e., the promises have
already been inaugurated), the second half is not the same (since
covenantalists believe that the consummation will be only in the eternal state
and progressives say it will be in the Millennium and eternal state).

The presupposition of the covenant of
grace.It is quite obvious that the presupposition
of the covenant of grace controls the covenant theologian's handling of texts
and issues involved in his criticism of dispensationalism. Van Gemeren plainly
says, "The Reformed exegete approaches the prophets from the
perspective of the unity of the covenant [of grace]."[26]Similarly Moisés Silva has written, "The
organic unity of God's people throughout the ages is a distinctive emphasis of
covenant theology (This emphasis in turn has profound implications for our
understanding of ecclesiology (including questions of church government,
baptism, etc.), of the Christian's use of the Old Testament, and much more."[27]

The bottom-line questions are these:
(1) Is the covenant of grace stated in Scripture? (2) Even if it is, should it
be the controlling presupposition of hermeneutics and theology? (3) Even if
there is a unity of redeemed peoples, does that remove disunities in God's
program for His creations?g

To be continued in our next journal.

Taken from Dispensationalism,
by Charles C. Ryrie, Moody Press, copyright 1995.Used with permission.Further reproduction prohibited without written permission from the
publisher.

[16]For such an
inductive study of the meaning of the words Israel and church, see
Charles Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (New York: Loizeaux
Bros., 1953), 62-70. Most nondispensationalists make no such study.Also see, Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum,
"Israel and the Church," in Issues in Dispensationalism, ed.
Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master (Chicago: Moody, 1994), p. 113-29.

[20]Cf.
the interpretation of the 144,000 in George E. Ladd, TheBlessed Hope
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 126, and J. Barton Payne, TheImminent
Appearing of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), p. 63. Literalism would
end their uncertainty in interpretation of this point!

[21]George N. H. Peters, TheTheocratic Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952) 1:167-68. Quoting this
in no way implies that amillennialists are in the same category as unbelievers.
They certainly are not, for they are conservative in other areas of theology;
But the quotation does show in a striking way the dangers of anything but
consistent literal interpretation.